I'm turning towards the forums with a question related to the main difference between two drafts I have for my project. The first drafts for this project all were chronological. For the most recent one, I switched up the first and second "acts" to say. Now looking back at it, I am unsure if it was the right choice - I see positive and negative arguments behind both orders. The general question is: when you lot think In Medias Res is reasoned for? I understand that most stories start "in action"; I am specifically referring to the Odyssey-style where the events prior to the beginning aren't merely implied, but are told in later chapters. Now the two "acts" that I have been switching around. Mind, under "Act" I mostly mean a sort-of independent story; something that could stand on its own legs if published as a book. I've six of them in total; though the last two are rather brief (in their current iterations, I will likely expand on both). The setting is Napoleonic-era fantasy. Act A. Spoiler Here the reader is introduced to a fresh graduate from the low nobility who is employed in a high noble's court as an artist; a pretense for her to enter politics and start her ventures and rise. The main bulk of the storyline is about her learning to know the higher nobility while she works under the counter and behind the back of her high noble maecenas to establish her own power base and eventually eclipse her (I took your good advice from the /other/ thread I made and opted for this solution to the master-student conflict!). Other POVs are also given. Second's a northern noble struggling with the post-war collapse of her realm's economy and witnessing the birth of the socialist/syndicalist movement out of the unemployment/unrest. She is a stewardess in place of her comatose brother, deflecting a coup attempt and sealing alliances to preserve her family's realm. Third's a young nobleman returning from the fringe colonies to his defeated father's realm who hints to him of abdication and initiates his take-over of rule; somewhat hindered by intrigue in his court and factions vying to influence the son (including the above fresh entrant to politics). Last is a veteran soldier and courtier to another high noble who is made captain of the capital city's militia and is entrusted with bringing law to the "underworld" of the city (which is still controlled by the noble family that held the city itself before). Act B. Spoiler Instead of a bottleful of intrigue, the story here is about the oligarchic/civil war itself that caused most of the changes mentioned above. The main POV is a conscript and her light infantry battalion who struggle through the civil war and switch sides multiple times as their noble leaders are embroiled in various schemes. Her more subtle goal in war is to find her brother (conscripted the year prior) and desert the army with him. Other POVs are the aforementioned brother (not-yet comatose) uniting his father's realm and mobilising it into a warmachine to stand against tides of enemies, as well as making a Hannibal-esque excursion across a mountain range to change the tides of battle. Another's a princess engaged in tense diplomacy within her family's realm to placate semi-independent subjects into joining the war effort, only for her life to take a U-turn when her father & brother die and she assumes full leadership of her family's realm. Last is a royal prince whose father is the cause of the civil war (it's about a coalition of nobility seeking to overthrow the monarch and establish a sort-of monarch-less aristocratic realm). The story is about his defeat in battle, the ailing situation of his family's realms and court and finally his exile and fleeing into hiding. Now's for the arguments I found for the two different approaches/orders: Start with A and then B: The 3rd act is another chapter of intrigue and involves no major battle; whereas the 4th act is about war again. Thus, going with A and then B means an order of Peace-War-Peace-War-Peace-War. Act A is far more convenient for worldbuilding and to introduce the various principles governing my world. All four POVs are "new" in their positions and explore various sectors of the world, politics and intrigue. Act A presents high nobility as detached, regal and very powerful. Act B features them in a far more "humane" environment and presents a lot more interactions between them where they are "close" and "mundane". Thus, starting with A and going to B preserves their mystery until the 2nd act, then introduces their "backgrounds". Sort-of like watching the old Star Wars trilogy before the new, with regards to Anakin Skywalker. Darth Vader isn't the same imposing, mighty character anymore after seeing the prequels. Act B features a final battle for the capital city. In this battle, I have the POV character fight through a set of ruins before they reach the palace. If I start with act A, all these ruins and places are already well-known to the reader (as their reconstruction + reopening is an event in act A). If I go B and then A, they are merely redshirt-buildings in ruins. Act B is focused far more on war than the overarching story is. Act A features a large-scale battle, but as a single event encompassing only a pair of chapters. It is far more "representative" of the pacing and action in the greater story. Start with B and then A: Makes chronological sense. The 3rd act deals very little with the "new generation" introduced in act A, instead focusing on high nobility + commoners. Thus, going B-A-3rd-4th and so on means Old-New-Old-New generations. B introduces some episodic characters that are featured in the other chapters. Reading over my drafts, it felt better to have them already settled beforehands. The final act involves an elaborately plotted revenge of the overthrown ruling family, including the POV prince as one of two main antagonists. Starting with him & ending with him feels like it creates a well-framed story. All the characters introduced in A are somehow related to characters in B. Starting with B and then going A is a seamless connection; makes introductions easier because I can switch from the "old ones" to the "new generation" rather easily. As a counter to the last point of the other scenarion; B is far more representative of the "ending" of the whole story and the last two arcs. It allows to foreshadow; whereas starting with A may misdirect a reader into believing they're holding a story of wine & glasses and not one of politics, war and generational conflicts. Now I hope this wall of text didn't discourage you from commenting. As mentioned prior, I am not only interested in suggestions for my specific scenario, but also your general opinion on starting in the middle.
The main good point about starting at the beginning and moving forward, without extensive flashbacks, is that the readers understand the foundations of the story, and are allowed to move forward as the story builds. I know myself, I get very annoyed (usually) when I get immersed in a story, then get yanked out of it and taken backwards for a long period—especially if this second scenario focuses on new characters. My reaction as a reader—and this is BAD, from a writer's perspective—is to skim over the backstory and return to what's happening to the characters I already know. I might go back later and read the flashback, but only if I feel I've missed something important. Flashing back CAN ruin reader immersion. I tried starting my own novel 'in media res,' as they call it. I started at a point of high excitement, but then I had to backtrack considerably to get it set up. After I'd finished the entire novel, the opening chapter still bothered me a lot. I tried tinkering with words, etc. Nope, no joy. Eventually I actually sat on the floor with my opening chapter (where the flashbacks happened) and cut the scenes apart, literally, with a pair of scissors. I then rearranged them in chronological order. It worked MUCH better that way. I can understand your analysis of how the story's structure is set up. In fact, it's a rather elegant structure. BUT the main thing to consider is 'how is this structure going to affect the reader?' Your concept might be elegant AS a structure, but this isn't a building. It's a story. A building is only elegant when it's finished. A story needs to be elegant right from the start. As a storyteller, you want to draw the reader in from the beginning and keep them hanging on your every word. You don't want to abandon the story partway through, then start up another story ...which is what a non-chronological approach is likely to feel like to the reader. That being said, flashbacking can certainly work—with attention paid to how the reader will react : 1)Make a good transition out of the first story (the 'present' story), to prepare the reader for the flashback. 2) Set up the flashback so there is no confusion about how it connects to the 'present' story. (Reveal the time frame, relationships to the characters and setting we've already met, etc.) 3) Make the 'second' story every bit as instantly engaging and immersive as the 'present' story was. Don't let it become an infodump. 4) Ease out of the second story, back to the 'present' story, with the same care and attention you gave the earlier transition. Readers are now going to be immersed in your second story, and may resent being yanked back to the present! I'm not saying you shouldn't use extended flashbacks. I am saying you need to be aware of their effect on a reader. Flashback segments WILL yank a reader out of the present, so make sure you do everything you can to ease the reader gently into this situation. Don't leave them annoyed with the cut, confused by how and why the focus has suddenly changed, and impatient to move back to the original story instead.
Thanks for the awesome reply! I think this is the part where I have some leanings towards the in medias res approach. The acts themselves are rather large; they are self-contained stories of their own. Thus, no matter which I use for a start it will present a first act with initial action, some exposition, a clear goal and a climax + ending. Perhaps "Act B" is more lucky with this because the goal is simpler; whereas the other act has multiple characters with multiple goals, for B it's all "reach the capital and win this civil war once and for all" except for the prince who wants to prevent just that. I start chapters with date & time which helps quite a bit here. I am unsure if those will remain in the final version; they are a great aid for writing. If I decide to rip them away, I'll likely replace most of them with "time markers" in descriptions. Whichever story I choose to start with, the "easing forward" towards the third chapter should be fine. It will feature 80% familiar characters and the puzzle pieces from both acts will lay out the final goal (that carries the story to the very end). Perhaps it isn't me who is ought to decide about it, as I seem rather indecisive on this topic. Maybe I should just step over it, leave it as it is and inquire from a beta reader. That'd be a prime option ...
One caution - Starting chapters with date and time stamp doesn't really work. Why? Because readers won't necessarily remember (0r even notice) what the previous date and time were. Don't make them do the math. Make SURE you include something in the first sentence or two that firmly orients the reader. Otherwise, confusion will reign. Your readers shouldn't need to backtrack to catch up. Don't be afraid to emphasize something you want the reader to 'get.' Just a mention usually isn't enough. If you can, give your reader one or two points that make the orientation clear. Don't assume because you've said it that the reader has picked it up! It's a lesson I had to learn over and over again while editing my novel and getting various tranches of beta-reader feedback. If the readers missed something important, I always went back and reinforced the spot where I first introduced that issue. I had to make SURE that point was memorable enough so when it came up again the reader 'remembered.' Just dropping a date or a name into the mix isn't usually enough. You need to make that date or name memorable when you first drop it. A vivid image associated with it, or some minor—but intriguing—detail is usually enough. Editing should build a sturdy bridge between what you thought you were saying, and what your reader actually picked up.
Write in chronological order and sneak in single-sentence reminders of past chapters when needed. One trick I found useful was to let the main character reflect on what happened before in thought and conversation. The less the reader has to be distracted by jumps in time and remembering things, the more reader attention you have left for complex intrigues and drama. Like hiding nuts and bolts on a car to show off the curves and fine details.
